Reviews for The Silence of the Rational Center: American Foreign Policy Is Failing

The average rating for The Silence of the Rational Center: American Foreign Policy Is Failing based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2007-07-13 00:00:00 DANNY GOLEY Slightly biased but very in depth.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-06-23 00:00:00 Mohammad Aminian According to Marc J. Hetherington (Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University) and Jonathan D. Weiler (Director of Undergraduate Studies in Global Studies at UNC Chapel Hill) the political divide in the country isn't between the left and the right, it's between authoritarians and non-authoritarians. So, while there is great polarization between Republicans and Democrats, it's not because the parties have become polarized, but because significant self-sorting has occurred such that individuals with authoritarian tendencies have moved into the Republican camp and non-authoritarians into the Democratic. The authors argue that the specific points over which the parties are polarized are explained more by this fact than by any other ideological difference. What are the characteristics of authoritarians? Authoritarian behavior can roughly be grouped into the following behavioral clusters: Authoritarian submission - a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. Typical behaviors include: • Unquestioning belief in their strong-man leader, even when being told easily debunked lies • More willing to cast aside civil liberties in the name of safety • Because views are so strongly shaped by what the authority tells them to think they are often self-contradictory, which is why authoritarians show higher than normal levels of hypocrisy Authoritarian aggression - a general aggressiveness directed against outgroups and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities. Typical behaviors include: • Inclination toward moral, ethnic, and political intolerance • Tend to favor the use of military force over diplomacy • Heightened response to fear, often with aggression Conventionalism - a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms. Typical behaviors include: • Tendency to be social conformists and the expectation that others conform to the established social code • Favor traditional moral standards • Tend to be more religious • A tendency to rigid thinking and an unwillingness or inability to process new information that might challenge pre-existing beliefs Lower need for cognition - individuals are not inclined to effortful cognitive activities. Typical behaviors include: • Strong preference for simple explanations to complex, nuanced ones • Tend to favor black and white interpretations of events • Are disinclined to critically evaluate information if it is delivered from a source they trust (i.e. an authority) Those scoring low in authoritarianism are more inclined to favor the abstract, seeing the world in more complex terms. Other characteristics of non-authoritarians include: • Place more emphasis on personal autonomy • Have a tolerance for ambiguity • Strong affinity for fairness • Aversion to ethnocentrism • Higher need for cognition It should go without saying after reading the traits above ... the Republican Party is the party of authoritarians. While authoritarianism and conservatism are closely intertwined in contemporary American politics, it's important to point out that the two are not inextricably linked. Authoritarianism doesn't dictate a person's attitude towards the free market, for example. It's also possible for left-wing organizations to be authoritarian, such as communism in China under Mao Zedong. With that said, authoritarianism today, which is on the rise throughout the world, is entirely a right-wing phenomenon. So how did this occur? The authors suggest that one issue was largely (though certainly not entirely) responsible for this sorting … that of race (other issues that split along authoritarian lines include feminism, immigration, gay rights and national defense). Race is a particularly effective issue to organize individuals with authoritarian personalities since they are naturally hostile towards outgroups … ethnic and religious outgroups in particular. It's thus no accident that immigration has been used by the 45th president to rally his base and that a wall separating the U.S. from our neighbors to the south has played such a central role in his rhetoric. Authoritarian individuals are inflexible, hypocritical, self-righteous, prejudiced, fearful, aggressive and closed to new information and ideas. Given one party's embrace of authoritarian ideals, it's no wonder that dysfunctionalism now permeates the current U.S. political system. As to the book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics is a wonky, data-driven exercise that struck me as more of an extended political journal article than a book for the general public. It's dry, limits itself to narrow questions (mainly that of explaining the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections), and doesn't address the broader implications of authoritarianism in society. The book also fails to tackle any causal factors … in particular that of income inequality, which has long been known to result in the destabilization of democratic institutions. Henry A. Wallace, vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt, warned of "wealthy men who sincerely believe that their wealth is likely to be safer" if they support "demagogues." What it does do is attempt to explain the deep polarization of American politics, and points to authoritarianism as the single most significant cause.